PainScience.com Sensible advice for aches, pains & injuries
 
 

‘Reductionism’ Is Not an Insult

Reducing complex systems in nature to their components is not a bad thing

updated (first published 2012)ARCHIVEDArchived pages are rarely or never updated. Most featured articles on PainScience.com are updated regularly over the years, but not archived pages.
by Paul Ingraham, Vancouver, Canadabio
I am a science writer and a former Registered Massage Therapist with a decade of experience treating tough pain cases. I was the Assistant Editor of ScienceBasedMedicine.org for several years. I’ve written hundreds of articles and several books, and I’m known for readable but heavily referenced analysis, with a touch of sass. I am a runner and ultimate player. • more about memore about PainScience.com

SUMMARY

Alternative medicine practitioners often derisively accuse their critics of being “reductionist.” This is intended to sound wise and knowing, but sneering at reductionism is a transparently convenient way to dismiss rational objections to crank theories and flaky bullshit. It insultingly insinuates a lack of vision and savvy about complex systems (like the body). It’s just an ideological gripe, not a meaningful thought, about people who allegedly can’t see the forest for the trees. (This is quite ironic, coming as it usually does from barely-trained dabblers and dilettantes, people who clearly have not exactly mastered either forest or trees.)

Certainly reductionism can go wrong, like nearly any mental mode, but it’s not an intellectual failing. It’s just one of many thinking and reasoning tools … not an all-consuming obliviousness to “the whole.”

full article 900 words

Alternative medicine practitioners often derisively accuse their critics of being “reductionist.” This is intended to sound wise and knowing, but sneering at reductionism is a transparently convenient way to dismiss rational objections to crank theories and flaky bullshit — the main context in which it comes up. It insultingly insinuates a lack of vision and savvy about complex systems (like the body). It’s just an ideological gripe, not a meaningful thought, about people who allegedly can’t see the forest for the trees. This is quite ironic, coming as it usually does from barely-trained dabblers and dilettantes, people who clearly have not exactly mastered either forest or trees.

Anyone actually capable of seeing profound patterns in complex systems would be a scientific celebrity.

Nothing’s perfect!

Certainly reductionism can go wrong, like nearly any mental mode.1 But reductionism isn’t an intellectual failing. The real thing — not the insult — is just one of many thinking and reasoning tools … not an all-consuming obliviousness to “the whole.”

It is not wrong to reduce human health to its constituents, and medical science should not be criticized for this. The nature of science is to slice a subject thinly, and this is a necessary and powerful way of trying to understand life (and almost anything else). Studying the bits and pieces of things has led pretty much directly to all kinds of medical marvels: vaccines and cancer treatments and every effective surgery ever devised are all about the triumph of understanding parts. Someday, we may well understand the whole by understanding its parts.

Or we may not!

Much of what is meant — or should be meant — by “holistic” medicine is that a person should be treated as though they are “more” than the sum of his or her biological parts, and cannot actually be understood only by understanding parts. This is certainly true in many ways, of course.

But make no mistake: we also need to understand the parts! We do! Very much. Please, do not throw the reductionist baby out with the holistic bathwater.

If you think the world is too complicated for reductionism to be useful, then you don’t really know what reductionism is or how it works.

Dr. Christopher A. Moyer

For contrast: the fate of medicine without reductionism

You can’t very well study the parts of something if you can’t cut it up, can you? This is one major reason why traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) failed to keep pace with the efficacy of scientific medicine over the last century.

In contrast to the way science busily divides and isolates everything it studies, TCM was always correlations between health and vitality and a myriad of behavioural clues and superficial signs and symptoms. They had to do it this way: cultural and religious (Confucian) taboos made anatomical and physiological reduction difficult by making autopsy taboo.2

So the Chinese became awesome observers, and then went a step further and described what they learned rather poetically, for which I have always appreciated them. The language of TCM is richly, beautifully metaphorical, and its practice can take on a rather artistic flair. But to the critical Western ear, it all sounds rather absurd: what do you mean, I have too much “wood” in my liver?

This is the basis for some knee-jerk skeptical rejection of TCM. TCM has many problems, but it shouldn’t be dismissed just because it has a poetic character that sounds strange, of course. It’s not literal: TCM doesn’t claim you actually have wood in your guts. It’s poetic imagery for an elaborate system of describing patterns in human health.

Unfortunately, poetry just doesn’t get you that far in biology. Metaphor isn’t going to tell you Helicobacter pylori is what actually causes ulcers or that our immune systems mistake our own cell contents for invaders.3

TCM is probably the most ancient and sophisticated of all folk medicines — which isn’t saying much4 — but it remains very firmly in that category. While scientific medicine raced ahead, steadily explaining and solving one medical mystery and problem after another for about 150 years now — starting roughly with Pasteur and germ theory in the middle of the 19th Cenutry — TCM simply couldn’t compete. Its showcase treatment modality (acupuncture, of course) — has failed every serious test it has ever been put to, and modern Chinese medicine has largely abandoned it. It’s now a quaint relic of history, far less popular (in China and the rest of the world) than your neighbourhood acupuncturist would like us to believe.


About Paul Ingraham

Headshot of Paul Ingraham, short hair, neat beard, suit jacket.

I am a science writer, former massage therapist, and I was the assistant editor at ScienceBasedMedicine.org for several years. I have had my share of injuries and pain challenges as a runner and ultimate player. My wife and I live in downtown Vancouver, Canada. See my full bio and qualifications, or my blog, Writerly. You might run into me on Facebook or Twitter.

More learnin’

If you want to learn quite a lot more about reductionism, you could hardly do better than this lecture by Dr. Robert Sapolsky, what he called “one of the most difficult lectures” of the course it’s a part of.

Lecture 21: Chaos and Reductionism 1:37

Notes

  1. See Dan Dennett’s concept of “greedy reductionism.” BACK TO TEXT
  2. Fu L. Medical missionaries to China and the reformation of anatomy. Journal of Medical Biography. 2014 May. PubMed #24833543. I’ve seen the no-dissection-in-China claim made in many contexts, but disputed in others, and I have no way of readily resolving it. However, this paper makes it fairly clear that dissection probably was mostly avoided in China for centuries, whether it was impeded by a taboo or something else:
    The earliest record of human anatomy in chapters of the Yellow Emperor's Inner Classic is likely to be based upon proper dissections. The first incident of human dissection for medical purpose documented in the History of Han Dynasty occurred in AD 13. During the Sung dynasty, a physician prepared illustrations of internal organs of executed criminals, published in 1113 as the Images of Truth. Successive Chinese medical treatises have plagiarized but preserved the anatomical diagrams without improvements or modifications. China had to wait till the mid-19th century for Anglo-American Protestant medical missionaries to bring about a complete and permanent reformation of anatomical science.
    However, it’s beside the main point: one way or another, medical reductionism was clearly not a feature of TCM. BACK TO TEXT
  3. PS Ingraham. Why Does Pain Hurt? How an evolutionary wrong turn led to a biological glitch that condemned the animal kingdom — you included — to much louder, longer pain. PainScience.com. 5139 words. BACK TO TEXT
  4. ScienceBasedMedicine.org [Internet]. Ramey D. Acupuncture and history: The “ancient” therapy that’s been around for several decades; 2010 Oct 18 [cited 14 Nov 27]. BACK TO TEXT